the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]seems to say that destruction of the unsaved is permanent and conclusive within and, no later than, by the end of this age.

2. Zoe
I've found the following definitions of the words translated, "Life", helpful:. [/SIZE] . .

A not very interesting digression that did not address my point. Your argument was that “Eternal life in hell is still eternal life, so how can the unsaved have eternal life without having accepted Jesus?” I said the word “zoe” used of those resurrected to eternal life was never used of those resurrected to eternal punishment. You went ‘round the Maypole several times without ever addressing that point. The "zoe" promised to the righteous is never promised to the wicked.

Psalms 1:5, "...the ungodly shall not stand (rise, be resurrected) in the judgment,". . .

A deliberate misquote of scripture and a false definition to further your false doctrine. I don’t see “resurrection” in the real definition anywhere. Here is what the Psalm actually says. You omitted the second part of the verse, quite evidently, because it destroys your argument.

Psa 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand [[SIZE=+1]קוּם[/SIZE]] in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.​

"The ungodly shall not stand in the judgement" is parallel to “sinners [shall not stand] in the congregation of the righteous."

Keil-Delitszch Commentary on the O.T. Psalm 1:5 With [SIZE=+1]על־כּן[/SIZE] an inference is drawn from this moral characteristic of the ungodly: just on account of their inner worthlessness and instability they do not stand בּמּשׁפּט. This is the word for the judgment of just recompense to which God brings each individual man and all without exception with all their words (Ecc_12:14), - His righteous government, which takes cognisance of the whole life of each individual and the history of nations and recompenses according to desert. In this judgment the ungodly cannot stand ([SIZE=+1]קוּם[/SIZE] to continue to stand, like [SIZE=+1]עמד[/SIZE] Psa_130:3 to keep one's self erect), nor sinners [SIZE=+1]בּעדת צדיקים[/SIZE]. The congregation ([SIZE=+1]עדה [/SIZE] ( noi = ‛idah, from [SIZE=+1]עד, יעד [/SIZE]) of the righteous is the congregation of Jahve ([SIZE=+1]עדת ה [/SIZE]), which, according to its nature which is ordained and inwrought by God, is a congregation of the righteous, to which consequently the unrighteous belong only outwardly and visibly:

H6965 [SIZE=+1]קוּם[/SIZE] qum koom
A primitive root; to rise (in various applications, literally, figuratively, intensively and causatively): - abide, accomplish, X be clearer, confirm, continue, decree, X be dim, endure, X enemy, enjoin, get up, make good, help, hold, (help to) lift up (again), make, X but newly, ordain, perform, pitch, raise (up), rear (up), remain, (a-) rise (up) (again, against), rouse up, set (up), (e-) stablish, (make to) stand (up), stir up, strengthen, succeed, (as-, make) sure (-ly), (be) up (-hold, -rising).​

[SIZE=-1]Here, it appears evident that the life of the unsaved ends with all finality at their death.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

Even their sentience, composing their memories, are forgotten and lost forever. How could those memories be brought back for judgment? For without one's memories what value could judgment have on someone if they had no memory of what they were being judged for?[/SIZE]

Misrepresenting and misapplying the scripture. Even as you quoted the verse it says memory "of them" is forgotten, not "their" respective memories. And your idea flies in the face of God’s omniscience.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1](eternal destruction)

'Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself.

* * *

In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.-]Marvin R. Vincent[/SIZE]

[size=+1]αιων/ως ω[/size] (Hom .+Herm. Wr.; inscr. Pap., LXX, En Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Patr. Sib. Or.) time, age. 1. very long, time, eternity-a. of times gone by, the past, earliest times, then eternity.

A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, p. 27

[size=+1]αιων[/size] [age aeon] [size=+1] αιωνιως[/size] aiônios [eternal]
A. The Nonbiblical use. Meanings are a. “vital force’, b. lifetime” c. “age” or generations” d. “time” and e. eternity
B. aiôn in the sense of Prolonged Time or Eternity

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 31

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek

[size=+1]αιων[/size] aiôn, onos, ho, Ion. and Ep. also he, as in Pi.P.4.186, E.Ph.1484: apocop. acc. aio, like Poseido, restored by Ahrens (from AB363) in A.Ch.350: (properly aiWon, cf. aevum, v. aiei):--period of existence (to telos to periechon ton tes hekastou zoes chronon . . aion hekastou kekletai Arist.Cael.279a25 ):

I. lifetime, life, psuche te kai aiôn Il.16.453 ; ek d' ai. pephatai Il.19.27 ; mede toi ai. phthinetô Od.5.160 ; leipei tina Il.5.685 ; ap' aiônos neos oleo (Zenod. neon) 24.725; teleutan ton aiôna Hdt.1.32 , etc.; aiônos sterein tina A.Pr.862 ; aiôna dioichnein Id.Eu.315 ; sundiatribein Cratin. 1 ; ai. Aiakidan, periphr. for the Aeacidae, S.Aj.645 s. v. l.; apepneusen aiona E.Fr.801 ; emon kat' aiôna A.Th.219 .

2. age, generation, ai. es triton ib.744; ho mellon aiÔn posterity, D.18.199, cf. Pl.Ax.370c.

3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc.

II. long space of time, age, aiôn gignetai 'tis an age, Men.536.5; esp. with Preps., ap' aiônos of old, Hes.Th.609, Ev.Luc.1.70; hoi apo tou ai. Rhomaioi D.C. 63.20 ; di' aiônos perpetually, A.Ch.26, Eu.563; all one's life long, S. El.1024; di' aiônos makrou, apaustou, A.Supp.582,574; ton di' ai. chronon for ever, Id.Ag.554; eis hapanta ton ai. Lycurg.106, Isoc.10.62; eis ton ai. LXX Ge.3.23, al., D.S.21.17, Ev.Jo.8.35, Ps.-Luc. Philopatr.17; eis aiona aionos LXX Ps.131(132).14 ; ex aiônos kai heos aiônos ib.Je.7.7; ep' ai. ib.Ex.15.18; heos aiônos ib.1 Ki.1.22, al.:-- without a Prep., ton hapanta ai. Arist. Cael.279a22; ton aiôna Lycurg. 62 , Epicur.Ep.1p.8U.; eternity, opp. chronos, Pl.Ti.37d, cf. Metrod. Fr.37, Ph.1.496,619, Plot.3.7.5, etc.; tous huper tou aiônos phobous Epicur.Sent.20 .

2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho aiôn houtos this present world, opp. ho mellon, Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ho nun ai. 1 Ep.Tim.6.17, 2 Ep.Tim.4.10:--hence in pl., the ages, i.e. eternity, Phld.D.3 Fr.84; eis pantas tous ai. LXX To.13.4 ; eis tous ai.ib.Si.45.24, al., Ep.Rom.1.25, etc.; eis tous ai. ton aiônon LXX 4 Ma.18.24 , Ep.Phil.4.20, etc.; apo ton ai., pro ton ai., Ep.Eph.3.9, 1Cor.2.7; ta tele ton ai. ib.10.11.

3. Aiôn, ho, personified, Aion Chronou pais E.Heracl.900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm.11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam.Pr.151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. Hêraïskos.

4. Pythag., = 10, Theol.Ar.59.

B. spinal marrow (perh. regarded as seat of life), h.Merc 42, 119, Pi.Fr.111, Hp.Epid.7.122; perh. also Il.19.27.

[size=+1]αιωνιως[/size] aiônios , on, also a, on Pl. Ti.37d, Ep.Heb.9.12:--lasting for an age (aiôn 11 ), perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. aidios, Plot.3.7.3), methe Pl.R. 363d ; anôlethron . . all' ouk aiÔnion Id.Lg.904a , cf. Epicur. Sent.28; ai. kata psuchen ochlesis Id.Nat.131 G.; kaka, deina, Phld.Herc. 1251.18, D.1.13; ai. amoibais basanisthesomenoi ib.19; tou ai. theou Ep.Rom. 16.26 , Ti.Locr.96c; ou chronie mounon . . all' aiônie Aret.CA1.5 ; ai. diatheke, nomimon, prostagma, LXX Ge.9.16, Ex.27.21, To.1.6; zôe Ev.Matt.25.46 , Porph.Abst.4.20; kolasis Ev.Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg.p.278J.; pro chronôn ai.2 Ep.Tim. 1.9 : opp. proskairos, 2 Ep.Cor. 4.18.

2. holding an office or title for life, perpetual, gumnasiarchos CPHerm.62 .

3. = Lat. saecularis, Phleg.Macr.4.

4. Adv. -iôs eternally, nous akinetos ai. panta ôn Procl.Inst.172 , cf. Simp. in Epict.p.77D.; perpetually, misein Sch.E.Alc.338.

5. aiônion, to, = aeizôon to mega, Ps.-Dsc.4.88.

http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/resolveform​

Passages which address the issue of [size=+1]αιωνιως[/size] torment. See particularly Rev 14:11.

Mat 7:21 [SIZE=+1]Not[/SIZE] every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye [SIZE=+1]shall not[/SIZE] enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he [SIZE=+1]shall not[/SIZE] enter therein. (Luk 18:17)

Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and [SIZE=+1]shall not[/SIZE] be able.​

Jesus said they shall not enter the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Jesus never stated, nor implied, that the unrighteous would be able to enter His kingdom after some indeterminate “age” of punishment.

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I [SIZE=+1]never[/SIZE] knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Jesus said I never knew you. Jesus is omniscient, here He says He does not and never will know the workers of iniquity.

Mar 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
48 where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' (Isa 66:24)​

Was Jesus concerned about the life span of worms and fire that lasted a long, long, time? Or was Jesus concerned about His followers being cast into a place where "their worm," not just any old worm,“does not die?" The worm would only be "their worm" as long as they were in the place. And undying worms and unending fire would be absolutely no concern of anyone, not in the place with them.

It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell . . . It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. . .It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." If "gehenna," translated hell here, is merely the grave, and dead is dead, what does it matter if someone has one, hand, foot, or eye, or no hands, feet, or eyes?

If "gehenna" is merely the grave, and dead is dead, how would cutting off one's foot or hand, or gouging out one's own eye prevent them from being thrown into the grave?

Mat 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal [[size=+1]αιωνιος[/size]/aeonios] punishment, but the righteous to eternal [[size=+1]αιωνιος[/size]/aeonios] life."​

Universalist objection: [size=+1]αιων[/size]/aeon, only means age. So the punishment is only an age long, not eternal, never ending.

Which would mean that the reward for the righteous is also only an age long, not eternal, never ending.

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever [[size=+1]εις αιωνας αιωνων[/size]/eis aionias aionon"]: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

First, in addition to the phrase, "unto the aeon of aeons," the phrase, "they have no rest day nor night" also clearly shows the torment to be eternal, never ending. Ten thousand eons, times, ten thousand eons, from now God's eternal, never ending, word will still say "they have no rest day nor night."

Universalist objection: [size=+1]αιων[/size]/aeon, only means age. If it means "eternal, never ending," how can you have "unto eternal, never ending,," "eternal, never ending?"

John was a Jew and the Jews used many figures of speech in their writing. One such figure of speech was reduplication of words for emphasis, such as, "King of kings," Ezr 7:12, Ezk 26:7, Dan 2:37; "God of gods," Deu 10:17, "Lord of lords," Deu 10:17; Psa 136:3; "Amen, amen," Num 5:22, Neh 8:6; and, see, below, Gen 22:17; Isa 128:10, 45:17; Phi 1:17, Phi 4:4.

The reduplication of aeon, "unto the aeon of aeons," emphasizes the eternal, never ending, nature of the torment in Rev 14:11.

Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Isa 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting [[size=+1]עולמים[/size]/olamim/forevers, (pl)] salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. [[size=+1]עד־עולמי עד[/size]/ad-olami-ad "eternity-forever-eternity]."

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: vs. 13

Phi 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Phi 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.​

 

[Soul Searcher]

In response to Pilgrim 33 posts 301-317

Pretty much all of these thoughts have circled my mind for years, there would seem to be only two logical conclusions, either hell does not exist or God is some kind of sadistic monster and Jesus a hypocrite.

I'll go with the hell does not exist conclusion.

Beleieving as I do, that God is more loving, more forgiving and more merciful than I could ever be leads me to believe that all who can possibly be saved will be saved, If there are any who are beyond being saved [with God all things are possible so this number should be 0] but if there is any who could not be saved then the only rational, merciful, moral thing to do would be to end thier existance.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Salvation is only possible through Jesus for those who accept it.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Salvation is only possible through Jesus for those who accept it.

I won't debate that point here, I'll just say that I think everyone will accept it.

But I totally agree that eternal hell [as taught in most churches] does not exist.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The King James translators put the preconceived belief of Hell in the Bible by mistranslating Sheol, but could not consistently conceal the truth in all 65 times sheol is used. If they had, they would have:

1. PUT ALL MAN KIND IN HELL: They found it impossible to translate sheol into "Hell" every time it is used. If they had been consistent in their mistranslation, they would have put the righteous in Hell. All go to Sheol at death.
   • Jacob goes to Hell [Sheol]. Genesis 37:35 "For I will go down to Hell [sheol] to my son mourning."
   • Job [Job 14:13] Job prayed to go to Hell [sheol]. He was praying to go to the grave where his suffering would end, not to where it would be greatly increased and would last forever.
   • "My soul is full of troubles: and my life draws nigh unto the Hell" [sheol-grave in King James Version]. Psalm 88:3. Sheol [the grave -- a quiet place of unconsciousness sleep where both the righteous and the wicked go] is the nearest thing to today's "Hell" that the translators could find and then could translate it "Hell" less than half the time. For the 4,000 years of the Old Testament, God told no one about a place called "Hell."
2. MADE A RESURRECTION FROM HELL: They would have caused a problem by making some be resurrected from Hell. [1 Samuel 2:6; Job 21:23:32; 30:23; Psalms 30:3; 49:15: 86:13; Hosea 13:14; Nahum 1:14]. All go to Sheol. If sheol were Hell, any resurrection, even at the second coming of Christ, would have to be a resurrection from Hell.
   • "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the Hell" [Sheol-grave in King James Version]. Psalm 49:14-15
3. They would have made those in Hell completely unconscious with "no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Hell [sheol -- grave] whither you go" [Ecclesiastes 9:10]. Did they know that a person with no knowledge would not know he was being tormented?
4. Sheol is translated "down to the grave" one time and "down to hell" two times in the same passage. Why such inconsistency? Ezekiel 31:15-17. The Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament-made in third century B. C. translated "Sheol" into "hades." These Hebrew scholars put all [both the righteous and the unrighteous] together in Hades just as both are together in Sheol in the Old Testament Hebrew. Did the King James translators know more about the Hebrew language than the Hebrews? Why did they tell God He was wrong when He put both together in one place? The reason is obvious. They had to put some in Heaven at death and some in Hell. They did a poor job of it. By mistranslating, they put a part of those in Sheol in Hell, but could not put the other part in Heaven. They had to leave them in Sheol where God put them.

The translators believed in Hell, but honestly would not let them get away from grave every time. The one time the King James translators did not try to put their Hell into the Bible they translated it grave.

• TWENTY ONE CHAGES in the King James and the New King James. If there were a way to know when to translate sheol into Hell and when not to, the translators of the only two of the major translations that have Hell in The Old Testament should know and be in agreement. Are they? The New King James Version takes "Hell" out of many passages where it is in the King James Version. When they translated a common noun [sheol - grave] into a proper noun [Hell], they did not agree often. Men never agree on what they want when they change the word of God.
• Today Catholics and many Protestants believe a person goes to Heaven or Hell at death. If Sheol is Hell, all go to Hell at death and none to Heaven. Even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob went to the Hell of the King James Version. In trying to put the evil in "Hell," they had trouble keeping the good out of it.
• Others believe Hell is a place where only the evil go, but not unto after the judgment. Sheol cannot be made to fit the Catholic version of Hell, or into the newer after judgment version. If Sheol was Hell, even the saved go to Hell at death. Much of the time, the King James Version translates it "Hell" when it is speaking of the evil, and grave when it is speaking of the good.
• The Hebrews believed that all, both good and evil together went to Sheol or grave when they died. Examples: "You shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave" [Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29]. "O that you would hide me in the grave" [Job 14:13]. Not one of the sixty-five times "Sheol" is used does it teach the Catholic version, or the after judgment version of Hell. The King James translators were able to put the name "Hell" in the Bible by mistranslating, but were unable to put in today's concept of Hell.
• Not translating Sheol is a falling down in their responsibility as translators. The translators would not mistranslate it "Hell"; but most of them believed in "Hell" and did not want to translate it "grave," therefore, they left it un-translated. It is an attempt to side step the question and not have to deal with it.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

In the King James Bible, there are three words translated Hell:

• Sheol
• Hades
• Tartarus

The following translations do NOT translate them into Hell:

• American Standard Version
• New American Standard Version
• Revised Standard Version
• New Revised Standard Version
• New International Version

The word Hell is not in the Old Testament in any of them. Most Bible students now admit that Sheol, Hades and Tartarus should never have been translated into "Hell."

 

[Soul Searcher]

Hades is interesting also,

By our modern defintion it is the unseen and used much the same as is sheol in the bible but the word also has pagan meanings Hades was said to be divided into two parts tarterus and the elysian fields divided by a chasm or a river of fire depending on the source.

It was said to be deep within the earth gaurded by a fearsome two headed (or was it three headed) dog and ruled over by the god Hades. All the dead went to hades, those who did evil went to tarterus for punishment, Those who did good went to the elysian fields to live out an eden like existance.

 

[Soul Searcher]

In the King James Bible, there are three words translated Hell:

• Sheol
• Hades
• Tartarus

There is a fourth, gehenna was also translated as hell, of all these the one that most closely has a meaning to what most would call hell is tarterus based on the pagan meaning of the word. Or at least that is my understanding of it.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Sheol in King James Version is translated

• grave 31 times
• Hell 31 times
• pit 3 times

1. The American Standard Version used the not translated Hebrew word "sheol."
2. The New International Version translated it "grave" 53 times and "death" 12 times.
3. The New Century Version and others also translated it grave.

The American Standard Version and other newer translations knew "Hell" as used today (a place of eternal punishment after the resurrection) was not right, but did not translate it "grave"; they transliterated the Hebrew and Greek words untranslated (maybe thought it would make their translation unacceptable, which it most likely would have).

"THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION IN THE O. T. BETWEEN THE FINAL DESTINY OF THE GOOD AND THE EVIL. THEY ALL ALIKE GO TO THE GRAVE." Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible

• TWENTY ONE changes in the King James and the New King James. If there were a way to know when to translate sheol into Hell and when not to, the translators of the only two of the major translations that have Hell in The Old Testament should know and be in agreement. The New King James Version takes "Hell" out of many passages where it is in the King James Version. When they translated a common noun [sheol - grave] into a proper noun [Hell], they did not agree often.
• Today Catholics and many Protestants believe a person goes to Heaven or Hell at death. If Sheol is Hell, all go to Hell at death and none to Heaven. Even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob went to the Hell of the King James Version. In trying to put the evil in "Hell," they had trouble keeping the good out of it.
• Others believe Hell is a place where only the evil go, but not unto after the judgment. Sheol cannot be made to fit the Catholic version of Hell, or into the newer after judgment version. If Sheol was Hell, even the saved go to Hell at death. Much of the time, the King James Version translates it "Hell" when it is speaking of the evil, and grave when it is speaking of the good.
• The Hebrews believed that all, both good and evil together went to Sheol or grave when they died. Examples: "You shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave" [Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29]. "O that you would hide me in the grave" [Job 14:13]. Not one of the sixty-five times "Sheol" is used does it teach the Catholic version, or the after judgment version of Hell. The King James translators were able to put the name "Hell" in the Bible by mistranslating, but were unable to put in today's concept of Hell.
• Not translating Sheol is a falling down in their responsibility as translators. The translators would not mistranslate it "Hell"; but most of them believed in "Hell" and did not want to translate it "grave," therefore, they left it untranslated. It is an attempt to side step the question and not have to deal with it.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Hades is interesting also,

By our modern defintion it is the unseen and used much the same as is sheol in the bible but the word also has pagan meanings Hades was said to be divided into two parts tarterus and the elysian fields divided by a chasm or a river of fire depending on the source.

It was said to be deep within the earth gaurded by a fearsome two headed (or was it three headed) dog and ruled over by the god Hades. All the dead went to hades, those who did evil went to tarterus for punishment, Those who did good went to the elysian fields to live out an eden like existance.

Indeed! It is most peculiar how the writers of the inspired Word of God were so inspired by Pagan beliefs and mythologies.

Indeed! It is also most peculiar how the KJV translators were aware of these Pagan beliefs and mythologies and, still, included them to the point of purposely mistranslating them into the KJV to maintain harmony with the Vatican.

Indeed! It is further peculiar that the KJV is the only version so intentionally mistranslated.

Indeed! It is even more peculiar that, despite all of its purposely intentional mistranslations, I still prefer the KJV the over versions. Go figger!

 

[Soul Searcher]

Indeed! It is most peculiar how the writers of the inspired Word of God were so inspired by Pagan beliefs and mythologies.

Indeed! It is also most peculiar how the KJV translators were aware of these Pagan beliefs and mythologies and, still, included them to the point of purposely mistranslating them into the KJV to maintain harmony with the Vatican.

Indeed! It is further peculiar that the KJV is the only version so intentionally mistranslated.

Indeed! It is even more peculiar that, despite all of its purposely intentional mistranslations, I still prefer the KJV the over versions. Go figger!

I also prefer the KJV, for the most part it is a very good translation, It does have some flaws, eternal hell being the biggest for sure but it is very poetic.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

A not very interesting digression that did not address my point. Your argument was that “Eternal life in hell is still eternal life, so how can the unsaved have eternal life without having accepted Jesus?” I said the word “zoe” used of those resurrected to eternal life was never used of those resurrected to eternal punishment. .

If there is a sentience or if there is an awareness or if there is a sense of suffering or if there is a feeling of pain, then there is some form of life;

and if this state is ad finitum, without end, then, regardless of whatever you want to call it, it is some form of eternal torment.

If, on the other hand, there is no sentience or if there is no awareness or if there is no sense of suffering or if there is no feeling of pain then it is irrelevent whether this state continues on ad infinitum and without end or not

for if there is no awareness it is moot as to where they are or what kind of environment they are in as since any form of punishment inflicted on someone totally oblivious to their surroundings makes as much sense as torturing a concrete block for all eternity.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I also prefer the KJV, for the most part it is a very good translation, It does have some flaws, eternal hell being the biggest for sure but it is very poetic.

Yes, it is a very flowery translation.

Another reason I like it is because it does have 250+ years of reference material tied to it.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Yes, it is a very flowery translation.

Another reason I like it is because it does have 250+ years of reference material tied to it.

In defense of the KJV I would like to note that I have read somewhere that the meaning of the word hell was once to cover or conceal, I know my grandfather used to refer to putting his potatoes in hell for the winter.

If the translator intended the word [hell] to mean covered or concealed then it is not that bad of a translation for hades or sheol is questionable for gehenna and tarterous though. Still it is possible that the translator made an honest mistake.

Given what the word hell has came to mean to your average person today, it should be removed from the text and replaced with the words sheol, hades, gehenna and tarterous, that way the reader can clearly see which the bible is referring to.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The King James translators put the preconceived belief of Hell in the Bible by mistranslating Sheol, but could not consistently conceal the truth in all 65 times sheol is used. If they had, they would have:
* * *
Not translating Sheol is a falling down in their responsibility as translators. The translators would not mistranslate it "Hell"; but most of them believed in "Hell" and did not want to translate it "grave," therefore, they left it un-translated. It is an attempt to side step the question and not have to deal with it. [/SIZE]

When European explorers first went to Australia, New Zealand and other nations in that area, when they returned with the stories of the exotic animals they had seen they were ridiculed, and scoffed at.

For example they described and even drew pictures of a creature, which had fur, but it had webbed feet like a duck, a bill like a duck, it swam in the water, it laid eggs like a duck. The "scientists" of the day scornfully said all these things were scientifically, and physically impossible.

Explorers brought back several of the animals that had been stuffed. Once again the "scientists" scoffed at them and said all the stuffed animals were fake, parts of different creatures were somehow put together to make them.

But the time came that explorers brought back several of the actual living creatures. All it took was one live Platypus and all the deliberations, pontifications, scientific journals, and learned opinions of the "scientists," so-called, amounted to garbanzo beans.

What we have here is discussion by blind cut/paste. I posted a few verses which you did not, cannot, answer, you respond with looooong cut and pastes which, as you did, ignores the verses I posted.

Those cut/pastes and all your, "If hell is real. . ." posts are nothing but spam. If you ever wish to engage is a rational, reasoned, discussion let me know. I have no interest in reading pages and pages of cut/paste plagiarized spam, which you did not even cite the sources, and which do not respond to my posts.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I have no interest in reading.

Isn't that the truth!

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Living by the Law's Extremes

The bulk of the bible, all of the Old and most of the New Testaments, were written by, for and to (if I may) the "Jewish geneological 'tree' ". Within its covers the bible is categorized into a variety of subjects such as law, history, songs, proverbs, poetry and prophecy.

Of the entire 66 books of the bible there is only about a half a dozen books in the latter part of the New Testament that were written, by the Jews, for both Jew and Gentile, but, specifically to the "Jewish geneological 'tree's' ingrafted branch of Gentiles".

The Jews early on told Moses to keep that terrifying God away and to just tell them what to do, God told them they would not like it, but they wanted it anyway so God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and in time added several hundred more laws. The Jews have a big bad history and all those laws really haven't helped matters. Seems while making, enforcing and living by laws can have an effect on the body they cannot rule or command the heart to freely "will" to do the law's 'Will" which, as it turns out, is God's "will".

God didn't want it that way, He even offered the Jews an easy better way out but they were so hard-hearted and entrenched in their ways and laws that they simply weren't ready and just couldn't see beyond their noses even though they had the promises and prophecies from earliest times forward to assure them. For while they were willingly, at their request, raised under the law, aside from the likes of the few historians and prophets, they had learned to live by the law, it was the law that was their standard that they believed in, they were comfortable with what they knew. So when that easier better way came along that did not require all their legalist history, which would be replaced by the unknown of the easier better way offered and, just as they had done many centuries before, they opted to go with what they knew, with what they could see; they preferred this against walking by the promises of both the still remaining promises given them and new prophecies yet to be given them, ie, they were unable to walk by faith.

So, God took the message to the Gentiles and they did receive the "easier better way" and were ingrafted into the Jewish geneological tree as a very special branch of the tree, for while the Jews live by their laws of the past the ingrafted Gentiles live by faith of the promises of tomorrow. The tree of Israel has always been God's earthly people and they have been promised a Messiah, who, as their king, will rule the nations of the earth from New Jerusalem. Because they have believed not by sight but by faith in That which they have never seen but the Jews did see and refused, thus, the tree's ingrafted branch of Gentiles hold to the better promise for they are God's heavenly people and that they will one day live where the Messiah and His Father dwells.

While the Jews, through their hard-harted hearts, have refused the promises of God, God has not forgotten His promises to the Jews and one day, when the Jews are ready, their hearts will be softened and they will come to God in His own way and good time and these promises and prophecies that are found within the greater portion of the bible speak to this. For until Acts 28:28, the entire material was directed to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. At that point, as the Jewish leaders of Rome left Paul saying,"Yeah, well", did Paul throw Isaiah 6 at them with the remark that this message would now be given to the Gentiles and that "they "will" hear it".

The prison epistles comprise

• Ephesians
• Phillipians
• the two Timothy
• the two Thessalonian letters
• Titus

In them we see God's dealings with the ingrafted Gentiles, his heavenly people. The other letters pertain to His dealings with His earthly people, the Jews.

Problems develop when people mix God's dealings with one class in a certain time with those of another in another time. Example: no one (except Hasidic jews) bother with separate cooking utensils for milk and meat, or with not traveling further than about a half mile (a Sabbath's day journey) on the Sabbath. Mixing Romans 8 with Romans 11 will upset anyone for the former speaks of no condemnation while the latter, specifically addressed to the Gentiles, speaks to works. Also, Revelation speaks specifically to God's people the Jews regarding the scenario of their salvation.

For the time being, the Jews still walk by looking toward the law and its full legal limit, capital punishemt, ie the law of death written in stone and on paper while, at the same time, the Gentiles walk by looking the opposite direction, toward the promise of the new law, the law of life written in their hearts.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Your argument was that “Eternal life in hell is still eternal life, so how can the unsaved have eternal life without having accepted Jesus?”

If there is a sentience or if there is an awareness or if there is a sense of suffering or if there is a feeling of pain, then there is some form of life;

and if this state is ad finitum, without end, then, regardless of whatever you want to call it, it is some form of eternal torment.

If, on the other hand, there is no sentience or if there is no awareness or if there is no sense of suffering or if there is no feeling of pain then it is irrelevent whether this state continues on ad infinitum and without end or not
for if there is no awareness it is moot as to where they are or what kind of environment they are in as since any form of punishment inflicted on someone totally oblivious to their surroundings makes as much sense as torturing a concrete block for all eternity.

[size=-1]The King James translators put the preconceived belief of Hell in the Bible by mistranslating Sheol, but could not consistently conceal the truth in all 65 times sheol is used. If they had, they would have:
* * *
Not translating Sheol is a falling down in their responsibility as translators. The translators would not mistranslate it "Hell"; but most of them believed in "Hell" and did not want to translate it "grave," therefore, they left it un-translated. It is an attempt to side step the question and not have to deal with it. [/size]

All it took was one live Platypus and all the deliberations, pontifications, scientific journals, and learned opinions of the "scientists," so-called, amounted to garbanzo beans.

Well, I'm nowhere near, nor have I ever professed to being, proficient in reading Greek although I am capable of reading Greek-English parallels as well as a variety of other sources. Certainly you're not expecting me to accept what you or anyone else says on blind faith, nor can I or anyone else be expected to accept anything or everything others say is so as though it were gospel. Although, being only human everyone is subject to reading into scripture what they think it might be as well as what their own preconceived notions and beliefs may be. Not knowing which version you use or why is no consoloation either for their opinions may be nothing more than garbanzo beans and to accept such as faithful, true and correct can only result also in a pile of garbanzo beans.

The concept of eternal torment is not an integral part of the doctrine of salvation but is, in fact, nothing more than history and tradition, and most conflicting at that for, indeed, the history and tradition of hell and eternal torment is completely pagan in origin. Why is it that if it were so deeply rooted as an inviolable concept in scripture it wasn't presented through the scriptures and by revelation of God first and not, as history proves, a result of pagan beliefs and mythologies?

Whatever, it is not an integral part of most simplisitic elements of the doctrine of salvation and is not, in itself, sancrosanct and untouchable but, rather, a product of history and tradition and up for grabs for continual re-examination, reproof and correction and, imo, the eternal torment concept is at the top of the list for it, alone, has been and will continue to be perhaps the single second largest reason for so many refusing the gift of salvation and that alone is the one penultimate reason (next to pride) for doubting its validity for it is highly subject to demonic origin for the simple reason that it 1) historically has been used to control the masses and 2) for all that have accepted the gospel out of fear of being consigned to such a place is coercive and against the entire concept of free will; to put it another way...

If someone accepts Jesus (not on the basic tenets of salvation but) solely on their fear of everlasting torment are they truly saved?

One can play rip cut and tear down of everything that does not agree with what they believe but that does not make it so; for regardless of age or education, such action simply proves to all by its very actions how spiritually blind and devoid of heart knowledge and maturity one may be. Of such I have no desire to dialogue with and, imo, scripture even acutions us of such to avoid.

My desire for starting this thread has not changed, to seek out the truth as to the origination of the belief of eternal torment. the fact that translators hundreds of years back altered the translations to input what they and thier superiors wanted the bible to say in this regard lends no support or credence to the work they produced, in fact, it detracts immensely from it.

 

[Soul Searcher]

This is totally off topic but want to share anyway.

the use of the word gospel in the previous post has gotten me to thinking.

Certainly you're not expecting me to accept what you or anyone else says on blind faith, nor can I or anyone else be expected to accept anything or everything others say is so as though it were gospel.

Isn't it interesting how in modern english we use the word gospel as a word to mean absolute truth, when the actual meaning of the word is good news?

Imagion if someone who was unaware of this came along 100 years from now and translated this statement substituing the words good news instead of absolute truth. the entire meaning of the statement would be changed.

This makes me wonder how much, [if any] of this has occured in translating the acient Greek and Hebrew into english.